ouroboros_start_evolve_step

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: background execution, immediate job ID return, and plugin-mode delegation with job_id=None. Yet it does not cover potential side effects, failure modes, or what happens to lineage state, leaving notable gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. Every clause adds useful information about behavior or plugin mode, making it highly concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex tool with 16 parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential async behavior and plugin caveat but omits other return-value details and broader workflow orientation. It references job_status/job_result for polling but does not explain other possible response fields or prerequisites, leaving moderate gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 16 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it neither improves nor harms.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb+resource: 'Start one evolve_step generation in the background and return a job ID immediately'. It clearly distinguishes this background tool from synchronous siblings like ouroboros_evolve_step and from status/result tools by emphasizing immediate return and later polling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use this tool: when you want background execution and a job ID to poll later, contrasting with plugin mode where results appear in the Task pane instead of being pollable. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusions, so it stops short of full guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.